Steve McIntosh Report Blog Archive

The courts and health care

by Steve McIntosh,posted Dec 17 2010 1:25AM

It appears to me to be “judicial activism”. A federal judge in Virginia … a George W. Bush nominee … has ruled the coverage mandate of the health care reform plan unconstitutional. Two other federal judges … Clinton nominees … have ruled the opposite. What will happen in two years when the question, presumably, will wind up in the hands of the ideologically-divided Supreme Court?

Without the everybody-gets-insured mandate, the pool will not be big enough to sustain the plan. The argument is that government doesn’t have the right to force people to buy health insurance. However, government does require people to buy auto insurance and doctors to carry malpractice insurance. Those mandates have been approved repeatedly in the courts.

Meanwhile, the health care coverage mandate … set to take effect in 2014 … remains intact, pending appeals. The issue may ultimately be decided by the highest court in the land … on another of those 5-to-4 votes.

Steve, your putting car insurance and malpractice insurance with mandated health insurance is mixing dissimilar items. If they bore the same responsibility then everyone would have to own a car and be a doctor.
Insurance is a private business and if we want to see the price of medicine go down the government needs to get out of medicine. As proof, go back and look at medical cost compared to government involvement.
Consider, if you were a business owner and you had access to two client bases; one that had a small, limited amount of money and one that was huge and unlimited in the money it could offer to pay you, which would you choose? The government is literally a blank check for the medical industry. I can compel involvement and literally print money to pay. Is it any wonder with that offer medical cost in all area keep going up in the US?
If we end the government blank check competition in pricing comes back and prices drop.
Robert Hyrneson